Alvarez-Calo v. Obenland

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CALO, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-5904-BHS-DWC Petitioner, ORDER v. MIKE OBENLAND, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner William Manuel Alvarez Calo filed a federal habeas Petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from a state court conviction. Currently before the Court is “Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Stay and Abey Proceedings” (hereinafter “Motion”). Dkt 27. District courts may use a “stay-and-abeyance” procedure while a petitioner exhausts his claims in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-77; Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner, through counsel, contends a stay is proper because he has a personal restraint petition pending in the state courts and resolution of these matters is necessary to exhaust his federal claims. Dkt. 27. In the Motion, Petitioner states Respondent does not oppose the stay; however, Respondent does not waive any defenses based upon exhaustion. Dkt. 27. After reviewing the relevant record, the Motion (Dkt. 27) is granted. The case, including

Petitioner’s supplemental traverse and Respondent’s supplemental reply, is stayed. Petitioner is directed to file a report every ninety (90) days informing the Court of the status of Petitioner’s state proceedings. The first status report is due on or before September 8, 2020 and shall include the state court cause numbers. If the state court dismisses or resolves Petitioner’s state court proceedings, Petitioner is directed to inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the state court taking action. Dated this 8th day of June, 2020. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge